I have reviewed my posts in this thread and I don't think you can be referring to me with this sentence. However, if someone calls himself an arahant and someone else tries to refute the statement, I suppose the refutation might possibly indirectly redound upon the former's character. Is that what you mean?

That aside, Ingram's actions are questionable. If he is an arahant, I would expect him to steer his - incredibly revolutionary! - course with a great deal more circumspection, if only to avoid comparisons with the numberless corrupt gurus who have come and gone in the last sixty years or so. It is for this reason, and for others, that I am still firmly convinced that he is not an arahant, of any kind. If this is character assassination, then so be it.

Hi Snowmelt and welcome to the Dhamma Mosh Pit Sub-Forum. I'm not trying to point a finger at you or anyone else. It seems Dr. Ingram has been on the receiving end of a considerable amount of harsh criticism, most of it quite skill-less already and he appears to be bearing up against it very well.

When it comes to criticisms of possible Arahats then I suggest that first we take the standard description of an Arahat, based on the Tipitika, a complete model of that behavior and a number of examples from the text, compare that to the descriptions in the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and see how they fare. I would suggest, not very well, thankfully, there are 'treatments' available.

If there is to be a useful critique of this book I suggest a far more intelligent approach be taken, one that would benefit all. If there is a shortcoming in the man then there is a shortcoming in the method. It isn't enough to simply say it is all vipassana by the book but full awakening even as described in this book was not something that was achieved by this man. If there is a flaw in this 'awakening' then there is a flaw in this method as well and it shouldn't be very hard to find it. If he is truly not letting go of something then it should be apparent that no attention is directed towards letting go of it in the method. Such an approach would be instructive for everyone instead of being divisive and a source of ill will. I hope that has been more clear.

nathan wrote:When it comes to criticisms of possible Arahats then I suggest that first we take the standard description of an Arahat, based on the Tipitika, a complete model of that behavior and a number of examples from the text, compare that to the descriptions in the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and see how they fare. I would suggest, not very well, thankfully, there are 'treatments' available.

I can only make assumptions as to what you are getting at here. If I am correct and you are referring to emotional detachment, then I suspect the Buddha himself would not fare well in this analysis. In my opinion, this result would reflect poorly on the application of the analysis, not on the Buddha. Also, to take such an approach to Buddhism is to see it, and its goals, as entirely delusionary andor psychopathic. If you *are* referring to emotional detachment - and I cannot be sure of this since you have not been specific - I think you are incorrect. The term traps us, as language so often does, with cultural connotations, in this case, negative ones. Rather than referring to an arahant as "emotionally detached", I would use the term "wise through insight". I will take my well-worn example of a new parent versus a grandparent. The new parent is upset when their toddler says for the first time, "I hate you". The grandparent has more wisdom, and takes it in their stride, *without* ignoring the child's emotional and mental turmoil. By extrapolation, I think the arahant, who has achieved an immensely greater depth of wisdom, will see every possible cause of emotional upset in the same way as the grandparent: not to be dismissed, but not to be taken overly seriously. It is an error to think that this equates to psychopathy. When a mind is calmed and insightful to the point that it is too placid and wise to become upset or to be disturbed, what remains are the four brahmaviharas. This contrasts starkly with the mind of a psychopath, which is the opposite of calm and insightful - it is disturbed and full of suffering - or so I believe. I would further suggest that, since we are discussing standard lists of mental disorders in relation to Buddhism, that such lists are indicative only to those who have not achieved nibbana, whose minds have not been completely calmed and tamed.

nathan wrote:If there is to be a useful critique of this book I suggest a far more intelligent approach be taken, one that would benefit all. If there is a shortcoming in the man then there is a shortcoming in the method. It isn't enough to simply say it is all vipassana by the book but full awakening even as described in this book was not something that was achieved by this man. If there is a flaw in this 'awakening' then there is a flaw in this method as well and it shouldn't be very hard to find it. If he is truly not letting go of something then it should be apparent that no attention is directed towards letting go of it in the method. Such an approach would be instructive for everyone instead of being divisive and a source of ill will. I hope that has been more clear.

No one has yet answered me on the topic of why, as a Buddhist, one requires more than the Tipitaka, which for so long has been the standard source for those who wish to achieve nibbana. I reiterate: it seems to me that so many people go in the opposite direction, flitting from one Buddhist "flavour of the month" to the next. This seems to me the behaviour of those who do not truly give any credence to Buddhism and do not truly want to escape the suffering inherent in this world - do not want to let go of greed, hatred, and delusion. Such people want to find happiness in the world, not see through it and find happiness within. The process is indistinguishable from the modus operandi of modern-day materialism. Or so it seems to me.

Snowmelt wrote:I can only make assumptions as to what you are getting at here. If I am correct and you are referring to emotional detachment, then I suspect the Buddha himself would not fare well in this analysis. In my opinion, this result would reflect poorly on the application of the analysis, not on the Buddha.

Detachment would be one quality of many that people apparently expect to see from Arahats along with other near inhuman modes of behavior. Yes, probably the nature of the Arahant reflects that the DSM is pretty screwed up about a lot of things.

Also, to take such an approach to Buddhism is to see it, and its goals, as entirely delusionary andor psychopathic. If you *are* referring to emotional detachment - and I cannot be sure of this since you have not been specific - I think you are incorrect.

No I'm not referring to detachment so we can forget that. I suggested that if you take the awakened nature of an Arahat and place it somewhere into the context of modern psychiatric analysis you will get a really strong prescription for quite a few different things. So this is one small point that can be made about worldly concepts of 'okay'. As a minor example of this psychiatrists will explain that 'healthy' human beings should be slightly depressive in general.

The term traps us, as language so often does, with cultural connotations, in this case, negative ones. Rather than referring to an arahant as "emotionally detached", I would use the term "wise through insight". I will take my well-worn example of a new parent versus a grandparent. The new parent is upset when their toddler says for the first time, "I hate you". The grandparent has more wisdom, and takes it in their stride, *without* ignoring the child's emotional and mental turmoil. By extrapolation, I think the arahant, who has achieved an immensely greater depth of wisdom, will see every possible cause of emotional upset in the same way as the grandparent: not to be dismissed, but not to be taken overly seriously. It is an error to think that this equates to psychopathy. When a mind is calmed and insightful to the point that it is too placid and wise to become upset or to be disturbed, what remains are the four brahmaviharas. This contrasts starkly with the mind of a psychopath, which is the opposite of calm and insightful - it is disturbed and full of suffering - or so I believe. I would further suggest that, since we are discussing standard lists of mental disorders in relation to Buddhism, that such lists are indicative only to those who have not achieved nibbana, whose minds have not been completely calmed and tamed.

Again I'm not suggesting anything about the Arahat other than what is said about such a one in the Tipitaka so we can drop this whole thing if you are up to it.

nathan wrote:If there is to be a useful critique of this book I suggest a far more intelligent approach be taken, one that would benefit all. If there is a shortcoming in the man then there is a shortcoming in the method. It isn't enough to simply say it is all vipassana by the book but full awakening even as described in this book was not something that was achieved by this man. If there is a flaw in this 'awakening' then there is a flaw in this method as well and it shouldn't be very hard to find it. If he is truly not letting go of something then it should be apparent that no attention is directed towards letting go of it in the method. Such an approach would be instructive for everyone instead of being divisive and a source of ill will. I hope that has been more clear.

No one has yet answered me on the topic of why, as a Buddhist, one requires more than the Tipitaka, which for so long has been the standard source for those who wish to achieve nibbana.

Well I like my pali/english/pali dictionaries for one thing and Abhidhamma is pretty thick without some help, should I go on? You do realize the TIpitika as a whole is big enough to build a real cool fort out of right?

I reiterate: it seems to me that so many people go in the opposite direction, flitting from one Buddhist "flavour of the month" to the next. This seems to me the behaviour of those who do not truly give any credence to Buddhism and do not truly want to escape the suffering inherent in this world - do not want to let go of greed, hatred, and delusion. Such people want to find happiness in the world, not see through it and find happiness within. The process is indistinguishable from the modus operandi of modern-day materialism. Or so it seems to me.

Seems to me almost all I know about other people is what other other people say about them. I'm not well enough informed about more than a few other people personally to comment honestly, being busy with the other thing.metta & upekkha

nathan wrote:If there is to be a useful critique of this book I suggest a far more intelligent approach be taken, one that would benefit all. If there is a shortcoming in the man then there is a shortcoming in the method. It isn't enough to simply say it is all vipassana by the book but full awakening even as described in this book was not something that was achieved by this man. If there is a flaw in this 'awakening' then there is a flaw in this method as well and it shouldn't be very hard to find it. If he is truly not letting go of something then it should be apparent that no attention is directed towards letting go of it in the method. Such an approach would be instructive for everyone instead of being divisive and a source of ill will. I hope that has been more clear.

I have been suggesting doing an analysis of this presentation and it's methods based on the information provided in the Tipitika! That is precisely what I am saying! If in fact it is so darn important to autopsy this book and this mans mind, then do that way for crying out loud.

Thanks for the conversation, Nathan. Despite my adherence to the Tipitaka, I still found myself considering your point of view and questioning my own to a degree. It wouldn't do for me to get completely hidebound. So, thanks.

I'm not entirely sure that Tilt is correct here. He may be, but according to my memory at least... Daniel Ingram posted at E-Sangha by the name of DhammaDan. Now, here at Dhamma Wheel we have a member going by a similar username but I'm pretty sure the Dhamma Wheel member with that username is not Daniel Ingram. That would probably explain why the search came up empty handed.

Metta,Retro.

If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding: Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)

Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7

As I said there, as far as I can tell, Daniel's advice agrees with the advice of my (Mahasi style) teachers, and my experience with that sort of practise. So, actually, nothing particularly radical, but very direct.

---The trouble is that you think you have time------Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe------It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

Guy wrote:Does anyone else think that a lay person claiming Arahantship is a bit dubious, or just me?

It depends on how you look at it, I guess. If you were to accept the prediction/forecast at the end of the Satipatthana Sutta at face value, then it wouldn't seem so dubious.

Metta,Retro.

If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding: Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)

Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7

Guy wrote:Does anyone else think that a lay person claiming Arahantship is a bit dubious, or just me?

No ... it's not just you Guy. I think it is quite sad.

with mettaChris

---The trouble is that you think you have time------Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe------It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

Personally I don't really care what Daniel claims to be. Other teachers I have experienced, read, or listened to, may or may not have some sort of attainments. I don't obsess about it. It seems pointless. I do know that my own teachers have experience with the things that come up for me, so they've clearly done some work on it...

Daniel's book collects together advice that I've mostly already heard elsewhere in a readily digestible (though sometimes annoyingly provocative) form. There are some useful little technical hints about how one might observed the three characteristics, which could have come right out of a talk by U Pandita, Patrick Kearney, etc. On a Mahasi or Goenka retreat you'll hear, if you pay attention, the exact same advice to: "Quit whining about your `stuff' and `just observe'". That's pretty much what my teachers will say (nicely) if I start conceptualising during a retreat interview.

As a general rule I don't care either whether a teacher is enlightened or not, that's not really the issue I was raising, if what they teach is useful to my own practice then I will take what they say to heart and if not then I will discard it. However, if someone writes a book where on the front cover they claim to be an Arahant I don't think they are really doing their cause of teaching Dhamma (if that is their cause) any favours. Maybe my thinking is wrong, but wouldn't it be better to not claim Arahantship and just teach rather than risk having to prove it?

With Metta,

Guy

Four types of letting go:

1) Giving; expecting nothing back in return2) Throwing things away3) Contentment; wanting to be here, not wanting to be anywhere else4) "Teflon Mind"; having a mind which doesn't accumulate things

Guy wrote:As a general rule I don't care either whether a teacher is enlightened or not, that's not really the issue I was raising, if what they teach is useful to my own practice then I will take what they say to heart and if not then I will discard it. However, if someone writes a book where on the front cover they claim to be an Arahant I don't think they are really doing their cause of teaching Dhamma (if that is their cause) any favours. Maybe my thinking is wrong, but wouldn't it be better to not claim Arahantship and just teach rather than risk having to prove it?

I agree. Never mind the possible truth to the concept that a lay person who becomes enlightened must ordain or die in 7 days (from commentaries, not suttas); just the fact that conceit is one of the final fetters to be relinquished is probably enough evidence to know that anyone claiming enlightenment is probably not enlightened.

In nearly every case I have seen where a lay person has claimed enlightenment, there has been a barrage of comments and challenges presented to the so-called enlightened person to which he (it is usually a 'he') responds with angry retorts and gets very defensive, often blowing his top off (with the keyboard).

Hi AccinteyoThe claim of arahantship leads me to consider whatever Ingram says with a grain of salt.As Mike has indicated, Ingram may indeed be teaching standard Burmese Theravada, but i would hesitate to rely on it.metta

Ben

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.